|
At the age of 80 all drivers should be forced to sit a test every year. It should be free but mandatory.
|
|
In all honesty, I really don't think anyone should be allowed to drive at the age of 95 years old.
|
|
wonder if he was insured - anyone know how insurance companies view drivers over, say, the age of 80?
|
>> anyone know how insurance companies view drivers over say
>> the age of 80?
Well changing my DoB from 1964 to 1915 put the cheapest quote up from approx £200 to more like £1000 on a comparison website.
|
>> Well changing my DoB from 1964 to 1915 put the cheapest quote up ........... to more like £1000 on a comparison website.
>>
Well, if I factor in the free TV licence and the increased personal allowance for income tax etc etc, I'm hoping to find that that level of premium won't be a problem!
|
>> I really don't think anyone should be allowed to drive at the age of 95
Zero has it more or less right Dawg. You are being a bit extremist. We both know that there are a lot of people whose reactions and so on are as good as they ever were, but who shouldn't be allowed to drive because they are intrinsically dangerous. Some people are just crap at some things, and with driving that is an important matter.
I am sure the venerable gentleman whose action provoked this thread had perfectly good reasons for doing what he did. It ill behooves whippersnappers to carp after the event, knowImean?
:o}
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sun 28 Mar 10 at 16:06
|
My wife's grandfather was really quite surprised last year when he got his licence for another 3 years, he really thought there should have been another hurdle (he's now 97).
Fortunately her family prised the keys off him...and they needed to. It was the hip flask they found in the door pocket that did it for me...apparently he said it was for when he "got stressed with modern driving".
We've all got elderly relatives who value their freedom and mobility and it'll happen to most of us...but... who could forgive themselves if a kid ran out and a relative we should have stepped in to prevent, ran them over because their reaction time wasn't up to it...or their sight etc.
What's wrong with regular tests, driving isn't a right.
|
>>> Zero has it more or less right Dawg. You are being a bit extremist. <<<
I don't know Armel, someone in control of a motor vehicle at the advanced age of 95 just doesn't rest easy with me I'm afraid.
We're not allowed to drive under a certain age, so in my not so humble opinion I firmly believe that there should be a shut off point at the other end,
but I do take on board what you say about the folk who's reactions are as sharp as ever,
but then so were mine at the age of 13 although I wasn't *legally* allowed to drive ;-)
|
|
You are a one P. It took me 'til Sixteen to get my hands on the Vitesse.
|
|
AND the Norton Dominator!!
|
>>>AND the Norton Dominator!! <<<
Ah - NOW you're cooking with gas!
|
>> >>>AND the Norton Dominator!! <<<
>>
>> Ah - NOW you're cooking with gas!
>>
Into school with my mate on the pillion. It was his Uncle's bike. We 'borrowed' it. I wouldn't let him be pilot as he was a bigger nutter than me. Rode around the playground trying for all we were worth to bait the Metal work master who was a cruel sod. Can you believe that we were not seen at all. Gutted or what. Got so peeed off we chuffed off to a distant village for the crack and dropped the bike when parked! Took massive effort to recover the situation, but we did. Got home OK. Just another day eh! Best days of our lives. Have just made contact with 'Pillion again through Friends reunited.
Best to all......................MD
|
|
we used to skip off from school on a Norton ES2 with a sidecar.
|
Make a table listing all ages from 17 to 100, and then alongside write down the percentage of drivers in each category who have a serious accident or are guilty of some form of dangerous driving - wrong way, reckless speeding, no insurance, etc.
Then decide what % represents an unacceptable rate, and ban all drivers in any offending age group.
That might mean excluding the over 95s, or the 17/18s, or possibly the 48-53 mid-life crises delusionists. But without data it is unfair and pointless imposing any arbitrary restrictions.
|
>>> But without data it is unfair and pointless imposing any arbitrary restrictions. <<<
Life! isn't fair comrade Pope, and I do honestly take on board what you & Armel say but -
lines have to be drawn somewhere.
We live in a Democratic society and I personally would vote that anyone over (shall we say) 90,
shouldn't be allowed to be in control of a motor vehicle.
|
>> >>>
>> but -
>> lines have to be drawn somewhere. >>
That's exactly what I am saying. But one needs information before deciding where to apply the lines.
Should the line be at 70, 80, 90?
17, 18, 22, ?
At present we are told nothing about just how dangerous these 95 year olds are, just asked to support a knee-jerk reaction that says anyone of 95 is by definition a motoring danger.
I have an equally irational instinct which says that any male aged 18 who has just passed his test and is out for the first time with his mates should be banned too.
|
>>> I have an equally irational instinct which says that any male aged 18 who has just passed his test and is out for the first time with his mates should be banned too. <<<
But at least they would have all their faculties, wouldn't they (wouldn't they?)
Basically I am just an un-edumacted twit from SE London but - I work on Vulcan logic.
What I see is that my older siblings (5 of), who are around the 73 - 77 mark (I'm a youngster of 58) are all on various pills & potions for HBP, Diabetes, Kidney failure, Cancer (Myloma) Vascular Dementia etc., etc., etc. and they are only in their 70's.
Maybe we need to 'look again' at Soylent Green & Logans Run :)
|
">>> I have an equally irational instinct which says that any male aged 18 who has just passed his test and is out for the first time with his mates should be banned too. <<<
But at least they would have all their faculties, wouldn't they (wouldn't they?)"
Would they? The most lethal driver IMHO would be an inexperienced teenage male, drunk and/or high, grandstanding to his mates.
Last edited by: ChrisPeugeot on Mon 29 Mar 10 at 12:36
|
>> Would they? The most lethal driver IMHO would be an inexperienced teenage male drunk and/or
>> high grandstanding to his mates.
>>
Would tend to agree, Chris. There are both the frailties of age and the foolish inexperience of youth to contend with. The effects on individuals can be horrendous going forward in their lives, this link is to an article about the people affected by such an incident and how they are trying to educate that younger element.
tinyurl.com/ycb4kvo
If you get a chance to see this video it's well worth a look, very sobering.
I have to declare a bit of interest as my 16 year old son knew the young lady who died and is a schoolmate of the lad seriously injured, a keen sportsman and very bright lad who will almost certainly never walk again and will require care for the rest of his days. If it hadn't been for the fact that we were away for a family occasion my son would probably have been one of the 18 injured.
|
> > any male aged 18 who has just passed his test and is out for the first time with his mates
> should be banned too.
>
> But at least they would have all their faculties wouldn't they (wouldn't they?)"
Yes. That makes it *worse*. They are in full command of their faculties, and deliberately crap drivers. Ban 'em!
|
>> I do take on board what you say about the folk who's reactions are as sharp as ever,
What I said was 'as good as they ever were' or something like that. My point was badly made. I really meant to refer to those people of all ages whose reaction speeds, driving skills and emotional makeup - undeveloped, pretentious, shamelessly neurotic and self-righteous, immoral and infantilised by government road propaganda - are so irredeemably crap in overall combination that they are dangerous on the road by definition and always will be. Haven't you noticed that there are all too many such, sharp old urban warrior that you are?
|
>>> undeveloped, pretentious, shamelessly neurotic and self-righteous, immoral and infantilised by government road propaganda <<<
Such fine words Sire - you are a credit to English Literature.
|
>> In all honesty I really don't think anyone should be allowed to drive at the
>> age of 95 years old.
>>
I wonder whether you'll think the same if you reach that age. It must be heartbreaking to have to give up driving, and particularly so if it's not of your own volition.
|
>>>I wonder whether you'll think the same if you reach that age <<<
Don't think I haven't thought about that one comrade,
but I'm just so, so, uneasy with the idea of a 95 year old in charge of a car in todays fast moving traffic.
|
Last Fri in town the car in front of me pulled to the kerb and slowed... then in a split second as I placed myself to pull around it he indicated right and swept right across the road into a narrow house driveway without a glance in the mirror. I noted the respectable 80ish gent in collar/tie and jacket/cap.
It seemed all his concentration was needed to get the car into the gateway and thoughts of the effect on traffic were a layer of brainpower too much.
Of course as I drive with anticipation I pulled up safely and allowed him to make the turn with no blowing of my horn so his dignity remained intact.
Sadly many many older drivers rely on the judgement of others around them to maintain their unblemished record... I have such a situation in the family and there is never an easy way to discuss this.
|
...Sadly many many older drivers rely on the judgement of others around them to maintain their unblemished record...
Saw something similar in the Lake District a couple of weeks ago.
Elderly gent driving a newish Hyundai hatchback, revving the nuts off it, trying to leave an on-street parking space.
Which he did - without looking.
I was watching this from the pavement.
A collision was only avoided because the other driver coming down the road stopped, having realised what was about to happen.
The elderly guy had his missus in the front of the car, and I don't doubt they prize their mobility.
But to me he should not be on the road.
What is it one or two members of the forum constabulary say?
A driving licence is a privilege, not a right.
|
Fenlander
I think that sums things up very well.
If I put signs on all sides of my vehicle " Geriatric Driver" I am afraid many would not understand the words or misinterpret them :-((
Perhaps "Old F... driving" would have more of an impression on more people ?
|
All these anecdotes about the antics of elderly drivers are undoubtedly true, but they do not lead to the automatic conclusion that elderly drivers are a problem.
I see examples everyday of exactly the same kind of driving, committed by a whole range of ages.
Yesterday a man in his 30s appeared to have been watching as I approached, and then pulled out of the side turn straight in front of me. There are people like that. But I don't draw the conclusion that people in their 30s ought to be banned from driving.
Or last week a woman reversed out of a supermarket parking space without looking. Should women be banned?
|
And please understand in the same way older drivers carry on as long as possible not knowing where to draw the line I've come to the conclusion I don't know where (if?) the line should be drawn either.... respect for one's elders and all that.
I do nip along at times but only when there is a massive buffer between me and any potential trouble. I drive allowing for others around me at all times and don't get easily stressed by unintentional lapses of others.
Having said that I have an older family member who is not allowed to carry our children because of reduced reactions and little anticipation.... it was embarrasing telling them but had to be done.
|
|
I intend to keep driving for as long as I can get insurance.
|
>> I intend to keep driving for as long as I can get insurance.
Are you assuming that the standard of your driving will be sufficiently high (whatever that means) until the time when you can't get insurance?
|
IF .. I should still be around at the grand age of 90+ I think I'd be only too pleased to hang up my keys for the last time.
Traffic is bad enough in 2010 and I dread to think what it could be like in 2042.
My Almera will become a classic, but perhaps I'll have a younger model by then - and she can drive ;-)
|
>> My Almera will become a classic
I think the old cornish calvados has addled a few brain cells perro my old mutt.
|
>>>I think the old cornish calvados has addled a few brain cells perro my old mutt.<<<
cornish calvados Tehe! I likes that Zed, its ruff, ruff cider.
|
>> >> I intend to keep driving for as long as I can get insurance.
>>
>> Are you assuming that the standard of your driving will be sufficiently high (whatever that
>> means) until the time when you can't get insurance?
>>
I should have said "I intend to keep driving for as long as I still have a licence and can still get insurance". I'll leave it to the appropriate authorities to tell me when I'm no longer capable/allowed to drive. They're paid to make that decision.
|
I think we're into runaway Toyotas and the like here i.e. driver control, panic reaction and so forth. Regardless of age, sex or species (I note we have a Vulcan - welcome to planet Earth sir) how about a more stringent and regular test? Do I hear turkeys voting for Christmas? :-)
JH
|
>> how about a more stringent and regular test?
Never mind regular, although basic psychomotor checks may be a good idea in over-70s or those with chronic illnesses. Stringent would be good though. Indeed it would have kept the roads clear of the many incompetents who sometimes make them a bit like badly-run playgrounds full of hyperactive, or clinically depressed, backward and badly brought up five-year-olds.
But then the automobile wouldn't be quite such a healthy driving force in the world economy, would it?
You can't win. I can still drive all right at 71 though.
|
>>>I'll leave it to the appropriate authorities to tell me when I'm no longer capable/allowed to drive.
That's the problem though... how will they know?
They have no real set guidelines and often a local doctor signing off your licence renewal is as far as it gets... assuming you have been honest enough to declare a condition to DVLA.
As long as you can walk from the GP's waiting room and make a fair job of talking about your hols for tens mins without falling off the chair then bingo... another few years with a licence with no tests that actually assess fitness to drive.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Mon 29 Mar 10 at 19:43
|
>> >>>I'll leave it to the appropriate authorities to tell me when I'm no longer capable/allowed
>> to drive.
>>
>> That's the problem though... how will they know?
Alas Altzhiemers means they wont. Someone needs to make that choice for them. The Examiner - every year after the age 80. Might even bring that down to 70. Free test, three free retests fail three on the trot and your license is burned for good.,
|
>> Alas Altzhiemers means they wont. Someone needs to make that choice for them.
Yeah, right.
www.alz.co.uk/havedementia/earlyonset.html
"While rare, it can affect people in their 40's and 50's".
So, let's make the choice for people in their 40s and 50s, too. 1 in 1000 mentioned in that article is too great a risk. So, "Might even bring that down to 40. Free test, three free retests fail three on the trot and your license is burned for good".
Great!
|
>>> I note we have a Vulcan - welcome to planet Earth sir <<<
Greetings Earthling ... Never let it be said that the old Dog is intractable, or unyielding to popular opinion, so I hereby retract my statement regarding disallowing citizens over a yet to be determined age from continued driving but ...
I would like to draw ones attention to this Dec 2008 newspaper article for your perusal ~
www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/4015999/Dont-punish-old-drivers.html
|
>> >>>I'll leave it to the appropriate authorities to tell me when I'm no longer capable/allowed
>> to drive.
>>
>> That's the problem though... how will they know?
My desire to be allowed to drive is motivated by the public transport situation in our area. We live 2 miles from the nearest town, which is small, and there are no buses from our house to there. From that town to the nearest big town/city, which is 50 miles away, there are 3 buses a day.
I need to be allowed to drive for as long as I can. If I'm not, I might just as well be dead.
|
>>> I need to be allowed to drive for as long as I can. If I'm not, I might just as well be dead. <<<
And there are many like you Senor, did you get to read this article ~ www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/4015999/Dont-punish-old-dri
vers.html
I made the decision some years ago to move from an isolated moorland hamlet with no shops, no P.O.,
no pubs, no bus service, to the outskirts of a town so we could get a pint of milk and a loaf of bread via shanks pony if need be, and not have to drive a round trip of 15 miles to get it.
|
I am inclined to condemn many comments in this thread as being pretty flipping stupid.
From Google:
"Man killed driving wrong way on M8 13:25, Nov 24 2009
A 65-year-old man has died in a four-vehicle crash after driving the wrong way along a motorway."
So, let's have all this licence business brought forward to age 65, maximum.
"FOUR members of a family died in a horrific car smash caused by a Polish motorist who drove the wrong way down the M1 after doing a U-turn."
So, no foreigners. Oh, he was a man, too. So, no men, either. That removes the vast majority posting here.
"'Macclesfield man jailed for driving wrong way drunk' (A55, Westbound) A man, 44, who drove six miles the wrong way along a dual carriageway has been jailed for eight months and banned from driving for three years."
So, no-one from Up North, either. No-one who drives in a Westerly direction. Another man, that confirms it.
"Kendray and Worsbrough Safer Neighbourhood Team (SNT) have been conducting some focused policing on the Queensway roundabout at Worsbrough Bridge after reports that some motorists have been persistently driving the wrong way around it."
So, no-one from Kendray and Worsbrough, wherever *they* are. Probably "Up North", I imagine. If it isn't, perhaps it should be.
"A MAN has been jailed after he drove the wrong way along the A14 at speeds of up to 85mph, hit another car and ran away from police. Donald Maumbe, 40 ...."
So, no-one from Cambridge. Hang, 'e sounds like a foreigner, too! A man, at that! No men, then, that's confirmed *again*.
"Bank manager crashes into lorry driving wrong way up Mancunian Way. SENIOR bank manager Deborah Ford crashed into a lorry while driving the wrong way on the Mancunian Way."
So, no bank managers. Hang on, she's a woman. No women drivers allowed, either! No-one called Deborah, or with a surname of Ford. Hang on, "Mancunian Way" is north of Leicester, so that's a Northerner, too, so that confirms it. No "Northerners". No men. No women.
Last edited by: Webmaster on Fri 23 Apr 10 at 01:06
|
Anyone can pick random events from the press and pretend they represent an argument FT,
|
*BING*
Exactly, you've got it.
|
Insurance companies dont pick articals at random now do they FT and they think the over 65s are a significantly higher risk.
Not me being flippin stupid FT, Now do be sensible. There is nothing wrong with the free testing idea and you know it.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 29 Mar 10 at 20:04
|
|
A higher risk than whom? Everyone, or selected age groupings?
|
>> A higher risk than whom? Everyone or selected age groupings?
everyone apart from the 17-21 male age group.
|
|
I apologise for saying "BING". Someone on a newsgroup I used to read had a habit of saying that, and it's very irritating. I have fallen into the trap. Bother.
|
FT,
which is why the testing should be indiscriminate, not age related. Would that be a solution do you think?
JH
|
Where is the real evidence that older drivers are a threat to others' life and limb in the way of the young and testosteroned or the stoned or pickled?
I'm prepared to believe the inurance stats as evidence of claims, but how we do know whether these are big sums for PI or fender benders from their own gatepost?
|
|
Oh I see. Severity of the accident doesnt matter. Fine let them drive the wrong way up the road - only worry about it if they hit something.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 29 Mar 10 at 22:29
|
Z,
Nice fast answer but no evidence of a real danger to others. Annual re-testing after 70 or even 80 seems like overkill for those who just want to get to the bowls club and Tesco.
|
I passed my driving test first time in 1962 after about 3 months practice (no paid for lessons) with my dear old dad. I was 23 before I first got behind a steering wheel but found that driving a car was relatively easy. I am now 71 and have driven on average about 12000 miles per year. I have only had one accident that was my fault and that didn't involve another vehicle – I skidded into a telegraph pole after I had about 18 months driving experience. I am a much safer driver now than I was 40, 30, 20 or even 10 years ago.
I have always had a dread of meeting a car driving the wrong way towards me and last year it happened, fortunately on a very short slip road off the M53 when both cars were travelling at about 20mph and I was able to take evasive action. The other driver appeared to be about 50.
None of this proves anything.
|
SH
you are now 70 and still driving - great. Would you object to having to sit a test every year if it was free?
> I am a much safer driver now than I was 40, 30, 20 or even 10 years ago.
who has verified that?
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 29 Mar 10 at 22:33
|
Zero
No, I wouldn't object to taking a driving test every year (I mightn't object too much even if I had to pay a nominal fee, say £20).
I have verified my own driving ability. I know when I am driving well and when I am not. When driving was part of my occupation I was conscious on more than one occasion that I was thinking more about the next customer that I was driving to see than I was about how I was driving my car.
I have made many journeys at various ages when I have looked back and thought that I could have done things differently and better.
Since I retired my driving has been more relaxed and, in my humble opinion, better.
I'm not quite sure where this thread is leading us. Some (but probably not many) 95 year old drivers are perfectly safe to drive. Some 50 year old drivers are not. I would suggest that more under 20's are more of a danger to other drivers than over 80's.
But what does this prove? If nobody drove a car there would never be a car accident.
|
>> No I wouldn't object to taking a driving test every year (I mightn't object too
>> much even if I had to pay a nominal fee say £20).
Nor would I. But I know that there wouldn't be enough testing facilities to enable that to be done, and there wouldn't be enough money to fund those facilities anyway. The cost to the Driving Standards Agency for each test would run into hundreds of pounds.
|
>>(I mightn't object too much even if I had to pay a nominal fee say £20).
>>
>>The cost to the Driving Standards Agency for each test would run into hundreds of pounds.
>>
I live "in town" and my nearest test centre is 2/3 miles away so the overall cost to me in time and fuel would be acceptable.
The cost to a vast number of people in remoter areas would be far far higher.
e.g The cost and stress of undertaking a long trip there and back might just be the final straw.
|
"The cost and stress of undertaking a long trip there and back might just be the final straw."
especially if they took a wrong turning and ended up driving on the wrong side of a dual carriageway! :-)
|
I honestly was going to leave this thread alone as its been done to the death IMO but ...
>>> The cost and stress of undertaking a long trip there and back might just be the final straw. <<<
Doesn't that eh - say something? Like should they be driving at all?
|
>> Doesn't that eh - say something? Like should they be driving at all?
Yeah but no but. A lot of them scale back their driving ambitions and just do the routine journeys to the shops, library, rotarians etc. Anything more and they'll use bus, tarin hire a taxi or rely on the offspring. Certainly my experince now that parents, aunts/uncles etc are in their eighties.
Driving 40 or 50 miles to a regional centre to be put through a stressful experience (and could they even drive back if they failed?) is what makes it the final straw.
|
>> FT which is why the testing should be indiscriminate not age related. Would that
>> be a solution do you think? JH
It would be a solution, but it would be a ridiculously cumbersome procedure if carried out across the board. Another solution would be to re-test people convicted of any driving offence whatsoever, or of endorsable offences, or.... There are lots of possibilities, but I think the age cut-off above which a re-set must be done is a particularly stupid one, on a par, perhaps, with raising the driving age to 25 (which would cut down the carnage, but....).
Perhaps people over a certain age (55?) could be issued with (free) Hi-Vis flashing red beacons to put on top of their cars, to be operated when they're driving?
|
>>>Perhaps people over a certain age (55?) could be issued with (free) Hi-Vis flashing red beacons to put on top of their cars, to be operated when they're driving?<<<
I am inclined to condemn many comments in this thread as being pretty flipping stupid.
touché :)
|
|
No. Your satirical sense is malfunctioning.
|
I've had a quick look at the DoT paper on effects of ageing "Older Drivers -A literature review" tinyurl.com/ya3clxo
Apologies for the length of the extract - but there is more on the site:) Key point seems to be that the rate of accidents reaches that of younger drivers (20-29) only after the age of 85!
"The often quoted statistics demonstrating that older people have more accidents than those in the safest group, the 30-59 year olds, are based on numbers of drivers killed or seriously injured. When statistics based on all severities are examined, there is no age-related increase in total number of accidents for the over 60s (Road Accidents Great Britain, DOT, 1997). There are, of course, no statistics anywhere claiming that older people have anything like the number of accidents that younger drivers have. For example, in 1996, 4,253 drivers aged under 24 were killed or seriously injured on British roads, but only 1,927 people aged over 60 were killed or seriously injured, and the rate per 100,000 population for all severities of accidents for the 60-69 age group was 117, whereas for the 20-29 age group it was 507.
However, although statistics using numbers of accidents show so little increase with age, statistics based on numbers of accidents per mile driven do show a slight increase for the over 65s. For example, Cerellis (1989) American data suggest that the rate of motor vehicle crashes per mile driven is higher for 70+ than for middle-aged drivers, but only reaches and exceeds the level of accidents experienced by young drivers after 85. However, the general rate (not adjusted for mileage) is very low indeed.
Importantly, the increase in accidents involving older drivers is far less than most people imagine, and less than we would expect given what we know about age-related changes in perceptual abilities, reaction times, decision making and processing of multiple sources of information. "
Last edited by: NortonES2 on Tue 30 Mar 10 at 11:42
|
Man, 95, stopped driving wrong way along A12 - zookeeper
